CSPI's resident GMO shill Gregory Jaffe is a LAWYER, not a scientist!

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09-20-why-is-the-fda-about-to-rubber-stamp-ge-salmon

Gregory Jaffe: Last and perhaps most concerning, the committee’s supposed consumer advocate is a lawyer (not a scientist) representing the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an organization that favors the use of agricultural biotechnology. Like Van Eeenennaam, he has served on AC21, from 2004 to 2008. His views can be seen in a paper he wrote called “Creating the Proper Environment for Acceptance of Agricultural Biotechnology.” In it he states CSPI’s unequivocal support for agricultural biology and his belief that genetically engineered crops have increased productivity and farmer income while reducing pesticide use, and that GE crops are safe for humans and the environment. Each of these conclusions is controversial, and credible evidence abounds disproving each, give or take the claim on farmer income.

Jaffe completes the paper by tackling what he sees as the true threat of biotechnology — public acceptance of GE foods. He calls for “a strong, but not stifling, regulatory system.” He also calls for the regulatory system to be “transparent and participatory” with “independent risk assessment research that informs the public and regulators.” Sounds good, but a full reading of the paper makes it apparent that perhaps his interest in regulation is intended more as a public show to convince the public to eat GE foods, than a true review of the safety of GE products. In a more recent article, “Questions About Genetically Engineered Animals,” Jaffe expresses optimism that genetically engineered animals, including the AquAdvantage salmon, will provide environmental or health benefits.

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/12529-gm-salmon-are-you-out-of-your-minds

Gregory Jaffe was also imported into the committee as their supposed consumer advocate. In reality, he is with the pro-GMO Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), an organization that consistently ignores the mounting evidence of adverse health impacts from GE crops. Jaffe even filed a complaint to the FDA in 2001 complaining of companies that label their products as non-GMO. What further qualified Jaffe for his committee position was his published article Questions About Genetically Engineered Animals, where he touts the environmental benefits of AquAdvantage salmon.

BIOGRAPHY: GREGORY JAFFE, J.D. DIRECTOR, PROJECT ON BIOTECHNOLOGY CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Gregory Jaffe is the Director of the Project on Biotechnology for the Center for Science in the Public Interest (“CSPI”), an advocacy and educational organization that focuses on nutrition and health, food safety, alcohol policy, and sound science. CSPI was instrumental in pushing through the federal law to create the “Nutrition Facts” label with clear nutrition information and that set standards for nutrition and health claims on food labels. CSPI is supported primarily by its 800,000 subscribers to its Nutrition Action Healthletter, a health and nutrition magazine published ten times a year.

Mr. Jaffe came to CSPI after a long and distinguished career in government service. He first worked as a Trial Attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice’s Environmental and Natural Resources Division for seven years. He then moved on to become Senior Counsel with the U.S. EPA, Air Enforcement Division, before joining CSPI to direct the Biotechnology project. Over the last decade, he has been a strong advocate for federal positions in federal court and frequently has spoken publicly on behalf of EPA. At EPA he was awarded a bronze medal for commendable service, a special achievement award, and a gold medal for performance.

Jaffe’s interest in biotechnology began early in his career when he wrote a law review article on regulatory issues surrounding biotechnology and genetically modified organisms. In the early 1990s, while at the Department of Justice, he advised the Assistant Attorney General on biotechnology issues and worked with a federal interagency committee addressing biotechnology policy. He is currently a member of the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology’s Stakeholders Forum and was a member of the University of Pennsylvania Bioethics Center’s GMO Consumer Values Panel. He has published articles on agricultural biotechnology in the Christian Science Monitor, the Food and Drug Law Institute’s Update magazine, and the Environmental Law Institute’s Environmental Forum Magazine. He also has spoken at over a dozen conferences addressing agricultural biotechnology issues, both in the United States and abroad. He is a recognized expert on the U.S. regulatory structure for agricultural biotechnology as well as consumer issues pertaining to agricultural biotechnology.

Gregory Jaffe earned his BA with High Honors from Wesleyan University in Biology and then received a degree from Harvard Law School.

Don't know much about this Jaffe guy, but CSPI is a bunch of nanny state naderites. Even so, from what little I read, Jaffe has it right. As a matter of fact, the American Council on Science and Health, a conservative organization comprised of 350 scientists and MD's that serves as the antidote for CSPI, would agree with this. One of the founding member of the ACSH is Dr. Norman Borlaug. Borlaug was a staunch conservative and is one of the greatest scientists this country ever produced. Here's what he had to say about the topic:

The world has or will soon have the agricultural technology available to feed the 8.3 billion people anticipated in the next quarter of a century. The more pertinent question today is whether farmers and ranchers will be permitted to use that technology. Extremists in the environmental movement, largely from rich nations and/or the privileged strata of society in poor nations, seem to be doing everything they can to stop scientific progress in its tracks. It is sad that some scientists, many of whom should or do know better, have also jumped on the extremist environmental bandwagon in search of research funds. When scientists align themselves with antiscience political movements or lend their name to unscientific propositions, what are we to think? Is it any wonder that science is losing its constituency?
The fact is that genetic modification started long before humankind started altering crops by artificial selection. Mother Nature did it, and often in a big way. For example, the wheat groups we rely on for much of our food supply are the result of unusual (but natural) crosses between different species of grasses. Today's bread wheat is the result of the hybridization of three different plant genomes, each containing a set of seven chromosomes, and thus could easily be classified as transgenic. Maize is another crop that is the product of transgenic hybridization (probably of teosinte and Tripsacum). Neolithic humans domesticated virtually all of our food and livestock species over a relatively short period 10,000 to 15,000 years ago. Several hundred generations of farmer descendents were subsequently responsible for making enormous genetic modifications in all of our major crop and animal species. To see how far the evolutionary changes have come, one only needs to look at the 5,000-year-old fossilized corn cobs found in the caves of Tehuacan in Mexico, which are about one-tenth the size of modern maize varieties. Thanks to the development of science over the past 150 years, we now have the insights into plant genetics and breeding to do purposefully what Mother Nature did herself in the past by chance
Genetic modification of crops is not some kind of witchcraft; rather, it is the progressive harnessing of the forces of nature to the benefit of feeding the human race. The genetic engineering of plants at the molecular level is just another step in humankind's deepening scientific journey into living genomes. Genetic engineering is not a replacement of conventional breeding but rather a complementary research tool to identify desirable genes from remotely related taxonomic groups and transfer these genes more quickly and precisely into high-yield, high-quality crop varieties. To date, there has been no credible scientific evidence to suggest that the ingestion of transgenic products is injurious to human health or the environment.
One of the great challenges facing society in the 21st century will be a renewal and broadening of scientific education at all age levels that keeps pace with the times. Nowhere is it more important for knowledge to confront fear born of ignorance than in the production of food, still the basic human activity. In particular, we need to close the biological science knowledge gap in the affluent societies now thoroughly urban and removed from any tangible relationship to the land......

We cannot turn back the clock on agriculture and only use methods that were developed to feed a much smaller population. It took some 10,000 years to expand food production to the current level of about 5 billion tons per year. By 2025, we will have to nearly double current production again. This increase cannot be accomplished unless farmers across the world have access to current high-yielding crop production methods as well as new biotechnological breakthroughs that can increase the yields, dependability, and nutritional quality of our basic food crops. We need to bring common sense into the debate on agricultural science and technology and the sooner the better!"

Man, do I miss Dr. Borlaug.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.